5 ms·

Yes, US rail is pathetic, at least for passenger travel. However, a quick search on Google Flights shows a one-way ticket from LA to DC costs $98.00 on Frontier

by dc396 1y ago

Yes, US rail is pathetic, at least for passenger travel. However, a quick search on Google Flights shows a one-way ticket from LA to DC costs $98.00 on Frontier via Atlanta (YMMV) so I don't think it's correct to say there isn't cheap, easy, high speed travel across the country.

legitster 1y ago
It's also worth pointing out that even at TGV speeds, a coast-to-coast train ride would take ~20 hours. It would have to be sooo much cheaper than an equivalent plane ticket to be worth it.
- ACCount37 1y ago
  If we price the extra travel time at the level of US minimum wage, $7.25/hr, the extra ~15 hours of travel alone would add up to a price tag of $100. And if you don't have a bullet train, then the time-economy gets even worse. That sure seems like it explains a lot about the state of US passenger rail.
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    You could do a sleeper train one can work on. No loss of working time.
    - ACCount37 1y ago
      Which makes the train considerably less passenger-dense, and thus makes the train tickets more expensive. In return for reduced value hours: hours that aren't as productive as real office hours, or as entertaining as real vacation hours. I'm not sure if this would be enough to make coast to coast passenger trains more viable.
mrpopo 1y ago
It's also 700kg of CO2, one of the best ways to worsen climate change per dollar spent
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  What is it per passenger-mile, that's what you would have to compare to e.g. a car, bus, or train.
  - lapetitejort 1y ago
    246g of CO2 per passenger kilometer [0]. Versus 35g for national rail [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
- dc396 1y ago
  Ignoring the point that climate sensitivity wasn't in the parent comment, AFAIK, airplanes generate 0.16 kg/km, whereas trains are around 0.1 kg/km and container ships are at 0.016 kg/km. However, passenger ships and gas cars are at 0.25, diesel cars at 0.28 kg/km and rockets are over 1.0 kg/km, so it appears planes are in the middle, not really "one of the best ways" to worsen climate change. Sure, through a simple analysis of CO2 kg/km, trains are better for the climate for long distance travel, but they are vastly slower (average time from LA to DC is over 80 hours), which has knock-on effects, e.g., sleeping at home averages 0.25 - 0.32 kg/night, whereas staying at a hotel averages 10-40 kg/night, eating at home averages 2.3 kg/meal vs. 3-8 kg/meal, etc.
bombcar 1y ago
This is exactly it. The USA has solved two problems: cheap and easy travel across town (in your car) and cheap and easy travel across the country (in a plane). Both COULD be done by rail, and some places do - sometimes on the same rail network. And when the ONLY option for transcontinental travel was rail - the USA has some impressive shit. Given the limitations and money available it’s surprising it’s as good as it is.
- mperham 1y ago
  > cheap and easy travel across town (in your car) It's only cheap and easy if you discount omnipresent traffic jams, 50,000 deaths per year, ever-worsening climate change and the inability to walk/bike anywhere anymore. Aside from that, it only costs the average American $1,000/mo to keep that cheap and easy transportation!
  - robocat 1y ago
    It's a strawman to only mention downsides. People buy and use cars because the benefits exceed their costs. It isn't easy to value the benefits nor the externalities.
gbhdrew 1y ago
What serious person is pitching LA -> DC as a city pair for HSR? The best routes are the ones that replace short-haul flights that are currently really inconvenient in terms of driving and rail service. A route like New York to Toronto would make plenty of sense, where you have two major population centers that are very close together, but a huge headache to travel between by rail today (at 12+ hours total on Amtrak and Via Rail).
- dc396 1y ago
  The parent comment said "cross country".
- wenc 1y ago
  NY to Toronto actually doesn't make sense because there is a border. I took that train ride and it took 2 hours to clear the border. Even today the guideline is 90 mins - 2 hours. The whole trip took 15 hours. Never again. I could have flown it in less than 2 hours, security included. The flight would have cost less too! The only way it would work is PreClearance on both sides (but then again, Canada has never been interested in staffing PreClearance in the US, even though they had reciprocal rights to do it). They only started their first one this year in rural NY.

by dc396 1y ago

legitster 1y ago

It's also worth pointing out that even at TGV speeds, a coast-to-coast train ride would take ~20 hours. It would have to be sooo much cheaper than an equivalent plane ticket to be worth it.

ACCount37 1y ago
If we price the extra travel time at the level of US minimum wage, $7.25/hr, the extra ~15 hours of travel alone would add up to a price tag of $100. And if you don't have a bullet train, then the time-economy gets even worse. That sure seems like it explains a lot about the state of US passenger rail.
- saubeidl 1y ago
  You could do a sleeper train one can work on. No loss of working time.
  - ACCount37 1y ago
    Which makes the train considerably less passenger-dense, and thus makes the train tickets more expensive. In return for reduced value hours: hours that aren't as productive as real office hours, or as entertaining as real vacation hours. I'm not sure if this would be enough to make coast to coast passenger trains more viable.

mrpopo 1y ago

It's also 700kg of CO2, one of the best ways to worsen climate change per dollar spent

SoftTalker 1y ago
What is it per passenger-mile, that's what you would have to compare to e.g. a car, bus, or train.
- lapetitejort 1y ago
  246g of CO2 per passenger kilometer [0]. Versus 35g for national rail [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
dc396 1y ago
Ignoring the point that climate sensitivity wasn't in the parent comment, AFAIK, airplanes generate 0.16 kg/km, whereas trains are around 0.1 kg/km and container ships are at 0.016 kg/km. However, passenger ships and gas cars are at 0.25, diesel cars at 0.28 kg/km and rockets are over 1.0 kg/km, so it appears planes are in the middle, not really "one of the best ways" to worsen climate change. Sure, through a simple analysis of CO2 kg/km, trains are better for the climate for long distance travel, but they are vastly slower (average time from LA to DC is over 80 hours), which has knock-on effects, e.g., sleeping at home averages 0.25 - 0.32 kg/night, whereas staying at a hotel averages 10-40 kg/night, eating at home averages 2.3 kg/meal vs. 3-8 kg/meal, etc.

bombcar 1y ago

This is exactly it. The USA has solved two problems: cheap and easy travel across town (in your car) and cheap and easy travel across the country (in a plane). Both COULD be done by rail, and some places do - sometimes on the same rail network. And when the ONLY option for transcontinental travel was rail - the USA has some impressive shit. Given the limitations and money available it’s surprising it’s as good as it is.

mperham 1y ago
> cheap and easy travel across town (in your car) It's only cheap and easy if you discount omnipresent traffic jams, 50,000 deaths per year, ever-worsening climate change and the inability to walk/bike anywhere anymore. Aside from that, it only costs the average American $1,000/mo to keep that cheap and easy transportation!
- robocat 1y ago
  It's a strawman to only mention downsides. People buy and use cars because the benefits exceed their costs. It isn't easy to value the benefits nor the externalities.

gbhdrew 1y ago

What serious person is pitching LA -> DC as a city pair for HSR? The best routes are the ones that replace short-haul flights that are currently really inconvenient in terms of driving and rail service. A route like New York to Toronto would make plenty of sense, where you have two major population centers that are very close together, but a huge headache to travel between by rail today (at 12+ hours total on Amtrak and Via Rail).

dc396 1y ago
The parent comment said "cross country".
wenc 1y ago
NY to Toronto actually doesn't make sense because there is a border. I took that train ride and it took 2 hours to clear the border. Even today the guideline is 90 mins - 2 hours. The whole trip took 15 hours. Never again. I could have flown it in less than 2 hours, security included. The flight would have cost less too! The only way it would work is PreClearance on both sides (but then again, Canada has never been interested in staffing PreClearance in the US, even though they had reciprocal rights to do it). They only started their first one this year in rural NY.